Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The tort of negligence is a cornerstone of civil law, providing redress for harm caused by a failure to exercise reasonable care. Generally, establishing negligence requires proving a duty of care, a breach of that duty, causation, and resulting damage. However, the law recognizes situations where even the exercise of reasonable care does not absolve a person from liability. This arises primarily when the activity undertaken is inherently dangerous, or a statute imposes absolute liability, or when the risk is so high that reasonable care is insufficient to avoid it. This discussion will delve into these exceptions, exploring the legal principles and precedents that govern such scenarios.
Understanding Negligence and Reasonable Care
Negligence, in its simplest form, is the breach of a legal duty to take care which results in harm to another. The standard of care expected is that of a ‘reasonable man’ – a hypothetical person exercising ordinary prudence and foresight. This standard is objective, meaning it doesn’t consider the individual’s subjective beliefs or capabilities. Establishing negligence typically involves proving all four elements: duty, breach, causation (res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself), and damages.
Exceptions to the Reasonable Care Rule: When Liability Arises
Despite exercising all reasonable care, a person can still be held liable for negligence under certain circumstances. These exceptions are rooted in public policy considerations, recognizing that some activities pose such inherent risks that those undertaking them must bear the responsibility for any resulting harm.
1. Strict Liability (Rule in Rylands v Fletcher)
The landmark case of Rylands v Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330 established the principle of strict liability. This rule states that a person who brings onto their land something likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at their peril. This means liability arises regardless of whether reasonable care was taken. The key elements are:
- Bringing a dangerous thing onto land
- Likelihood of mischief if it escapes
- Escape of the dangerous thing
- Resulting damage
Example: Storing large quantities of water in a reservoir. If the reservoir bursts despite all reasonable precautions, the owner is strictly liable for the resulting damage.
2. Inherently Dangerous Activities
Certain activities are considered so inherently dangerous that undertaking them implies an acceptance of strict liability. These activities are often those that involve a high degree of risk, even when conducted with utmost care. Examples include:
- Blasting operations
- Handling explosives
- Keeping wild animals
- Manufacturing hazardous substances
In these cases, the law places the burden of risk on the party profiting from the activity.
3. Absolute Duty
In some situations, the law imposes an absolute duty to ensure safety, meaning any failure, even without negligence, results in liability. This often arises in statutory contexts.
Example: The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 imposes absolute liability on industries dealing with hazardous substances. Any accident involving such substances triggers liability, irrespective of whether reasonable care was taken. This was a direct response to the Bhopal Gas Tragedy (1984), which highlighted the inadequacy of the existing legal framework.
4. Vicarious Liability – Independent Contractors
Generally, a principal is not liable for the negligence of an independent contractor. However, exceptions exist where the work is inherently dangerous, or the principal has retained control over the manner in which the work is performed. In such cases, the principal may be held liable even if they exercised reasonable care in selecting a competent contractor.
5. Res Ipsa Loquitur – The Thing Speaks for Itself
This doctrine applies when the accident is of a kind which does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence. It allows a plaintiff to establish negligence without direct evidence, relying on the inference that negligence must have occurred. However, it doesn’t automatically establish liability; the defendant can rebut the inference by demonstrating they exercised reasonable care.
6. Acts of God (Vis Major)
While not strictly an exception to reasonable care, the defense of ‘Act of God’ can absolve a party from liability if the damage was caused by an unforeseen and extraordinary natural event, which could not have been prevented by reasonable care. However, the event must be truly exceptional and not merely a foreseeable risk.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the standard of reasonable care is central to the tort of negligence, the law recognizes that certain activities and circumstances warrant a higher degree of responsibility. Strict liability, absolute duty, and the inherent dangers associated with specific undertakings can all lead to liability even when reasonable care is exercised. These exceptions reflect a balancing act between protecting individual rights and ensuring public safety, acknowledging that some risks are simply too great to be borne by those who may be harmed. The evolving legal landscape continues to refine these principles, particularly in the context of emerging technologies and industrial hazards.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.